The stats do not do him justice!

[marc71178]

The fact Stewart BECAME test quality with the gloves from 96-2003. Thats facts, no going around that.

No, it's opinion, and even if it's true, it doesn't make him all time test class.

 

[zaremba]

Sachin Tendulkar: Innings 261. Not out 27.

So 10% of the time Tendulkar walks out to bat he doesnt get out. Theres no doubt that Tendulkar's average is bloated by his not outs.

Brian Lara: Innings 232. Not outs 6.

Of course the standard device for working out batting averages is runs divided dismissals. However, if you do total innings (regardless of getting out or not) Tendulkar's average is 48.9 whereas Lara's is 51.5. Lara averaged 91.2 runs per test. Tendulkar averages 80.3

Ponting's per inninngs average is 49.77 and per test 83.9.

Lara's average doesnt do justice to him. Lara could by counted per innings, and per match, to deliver more runs than either Ponting or Tendulkar.

Lots of people will agree with you, but I'm afraid I don't. The simple fact is, imho, that Not Outs don't "bloat" averages. As you point out, an average is simply runs divided by dismissals.

You could say that Lara scored more runs per innings than Tendulkar; but by the same token, the stats suggest that Lara was easier to dismiss than Tendulkar. So, in this case at least, the idea of runs per innings doesn't take us very much further.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well if ATS you still have that opinion, its a dangerously poor one. Again i suggest lending those tapes of 2000/01 winter where he had his most challenging keeping conditions, since after all keeping to spin is the acid test for any keeper right?. Stewart was solid then.

I fear some of foolish nostaligia held againts Stewart's keeping was because like a Knott he never got to keep to any truly great bowlers.



If you want to pick 5 bowlers then he is. But after going through this debate i've realised that ENG ATXI cant pick 5-bowlers, given the question marks over Botham & the unfortunate reluctance for those to pick Stewart in the ATXI.

So i've resorted to this:

Hutton
Hobbs
May
Hammond
Compton
Barrington
Botham
Knott
Trueman
Snow
Underwood/Statham - depening on conditions





I dont understand the logic here. Thats like saying whether Steve Waugh shouldn't have been allowed to so much time in the AUS team due to his sub-standard test batting for 8 years, before he became the superb test match batsman in the mid-90 that he is remembered for.

The fact Stewart BECAME test quality with the gloves from 96-2003. Thats facts, no going around that.

Haa @ love affair. Richard just knows wats up. I think an underlying problem with this Stewart debate is i fear is the lack of skysports

You're now saying that Knott didn't keep to any truely great bowlers..........excellent.

Steve Waugh didn't have 8 substandard years. Anyone who saw him in England in 1989 could see how good he was potentially going to be, and he even made the runs to prove it.

Stewart becoming a Test keeper isn't a fact and no matter how many times you say it it still isn't.

I've watched cricket on Sky before Skysports even existed but unlike you I don't copy the opinions of a few rambling old pros and try to pass them off as my own.

 

[aussie]

You're now saying that Knott didn't keep to any truely great bowlers..........excellent.

Ha, typo i clearly meant "unlike Knott". Nice try..

Steve Waugh didn't have 8 substandard years. Anyone who saw him in England in 1989 could see how good he was potentially going to be, and he even made the runs to prove it.

That was 4 years into his career.

Waugh scoring rus vs ENG 89 was like Bopara scoring vs West Indies before this current Ashes series or Kambli before he was exposed vs WI 94. When Waugh faced REAL bowling in WI 92 he was dropped for his brother.

Waugh did not become the great test batsman he was until at least Melbourne 92/93 or the 93 Ashes.

Stewart becoming a Test keeper isn't a fact and no matter how many times you say it it still isn't.

Well give me some shocking performance between 96-2003 that disapproves it other than your blind ideological position?.

I again say its clear some of the foolish nostalgia held againts Stewart's keeping was because he didn't get to keep to any great bowlers. But in the winter of 2000/01 on some difficult pitches with Giles & Croft getting a much turn as Murali, Saqlain etc, Stewart was extremely effecient - so he completed the acid test for a keeper.

There wasn't any calls during the 2001 Ashes summer for him to be axed. Stewart was solid presence behind the stumps always, when he did his dual role as batsman/keeper.

I've watched cricket on Sky before Skysports even existed but unlike you I don't copy the opinions of a few rambling old pros and try to pass them off as my own.

I have copied anyone's opinion. My whole life of watching cricket has been Stewart's career of keeping for England.

 

[aussie]

No, it's opinion, and even if it's true, it doesn't make him all time test class.

Well as i just said. If England ATXI wants to pick 5 bowlers, Stewart is the best option to bat @ 6. Mainly due to Bothams failures againts the WI at his peak, which makes him too vulnerable an option @ 6 againts opposition ATXI's except for IND, NZ, SRI.

But given this debate, its clear ENG ATXI cant afford the luxury of 5 bowlers. Thats why i have taken the safe approach to pick 6 batsman, Botham 7, Knott 8.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I have copied anyone's opinion. My whole life of watching cricket has been Stewart's career of keeping for England.

It's a shame you didn't grow up watching Alan Knott then you might actually be able to recognise a good keeper when you see one.

 

[JBH001]

You are not the only older person who has been involved in this debate this time & before. The Sean, SJS, JBHOO1 (from before), Richard (i know u aint all that old dawg haa) etc they all have seen the clear facts in my assertion of Stewart even if they may not feel comfortable personally of having Stewart in their England All Time XIs. While also discreting everything you have said.

Sorry mate, just saw this and cant recall it. I may have seen your point but I dont agree with it.

Stewart would never get close to my all-time England XI with the gloves - he is simply not good enough to be an all-time XI keeper.

 

[marc71178]

Well as i just said. If England ATXI wants to pick 5 bowlers, Stewart is the best option to bat @ 6. Mainly due to Bothams failures againts the WI at his peak, which makes him too vulnerable an option @ 6 againts opposition ATXI's except for IND, NZ, SRI.

So you contradict yourself then.

Can't possibly bat Botham at 6 as he's supposedly too vulnerable, yet overlook the clearly not good enough keeping, or for that matter batting to stick Stewart in?

 

[aussie]

It's a shame you didn't grow up watching Alan Knott then you might actually be able to recognise a good keeper when you see one.

I saw Ian Healy albeit for 2 years. Plus there was Jack Russell, Mongia & Latif.

 

[aussie]

Sorry mate, just saw this and cant recall it. I may have seen your point but I dont agree with it.

Stewart would never get close to my all-time England XI with the gloves - he is simply not good enough to be an all-time XI keeper.

No you agreed with my notion that Botham couldn't bat @ 6, in England all-time XI.

Your post on page 14

 

[Richard]

So you contradict yourself then.

Can't possibly bat Botham at 6 as he's supposedly too vulnerable, yet overlook the clearly not good enough keeping, or for that matter batting to stick Stewart in?

Stewart was a notably superior batsman to Botham.

 

[MrIncredible]

Lots of people will agree with you, but I'm afraid I don't. The simple fact is, imho, that Not Outs don't "bloat" averages. As you point out, an average is simply runs divided by dismissals.

You could say that Lara scored more runs per innings than Tendulkar; but by the same token, the stats suggest that Lara was easier to dismiss than Tendulkar. So, in this case at least, the idea of runs per innings doesn't take us very much further.

I believe average to be the amount of runs u r likely to score but where Lara scores is the amount of runs actually scored per inns and this is reflected in the fact that Tendy took like an extra 10 inns to overhaul Lara's test aggregate though he did it at a higher average. Me personally, i prefer the amount of runs u actually score per test not the amount u can potentially score (which is what i believe ones average indicates)

 

[aussie]

So you contradict yourself then.

Can't possibly bat Botham at 6 as he's supposedly too vulnerable, yet overlook the clearly not good enough keeping, or for that matter batting to stick Stewart in?

Firstly no contraction. Again the consistent notion that Stewart wasn't "good enough as keeper" really needs to laid to rest.

As i said, picking Stewart @ 6 based on his from from 96-2003 gives you solid enough batting & Gilchrist/Sangakkara standard keeping & allows you to play 5 bowlers.

Stewart
Botham
Rhodes
Trueman
Snow
Statham

Plus its not like if Stewart would be keeping to a Underwood or Verity in this line-up due to the balance. Sir Wilfred wasn't a huge spinner of the ball based on all that i've read.

But i admit its too controversial to do that just to for the sake of having 5-bowlers (which is sort of luxury one likes to have for ATXIs). Thus i have taken the safer approach of 6 pure batsman, Botham 7, Knott 8.

 

[JBH001]

Ah, fair point.

I did say that - but I did qualify it too. Botham was unfortunate in that a good proportion of his tests against the WI coincided with the the foisting of the England captaincy on him at the age of 25. Something he was not up for then, or later. His record against the WI when not captain is quite a bit better - especially with the bat, which seems to be the key issue here.

Bothams batting record against WI when not captain:

Mat  	Inns  	NO  	Runs  	HS  	Ave  	BF  	SR  	100  	50  	0  	4s  	6s  	
11  	22  	1  	550  	81  	26.19  	888  	61.93  	0  	3  	0  	70  	5

Botham's batting record against WI when captain:

Mat  	Inns  	NO  	Runs  	HS  	Ave  	BF  	SR  	100  	50  	0  	4s  	6s
9  	16  	0  	242  	57  	15.12  	494  	48.98  	0  	1  	1  	25  	3

Botham's peak, it is generally accepted, was 1977 - 1984. He played WI once in this time as non captain, in the home series of 84, scored almost 350 runs at an average close to 35, at a SR of 65 with 3 fifties. Enough, I think, to take the view that he could not bat at 6 in AT England XI with a grain of salt.

 

[JBH001]

That said, its fair enough to have Botham bat at 7, and Knott at 8, with three other bowlers. I dont know that I agree with it, but I think it a valid point of view - unlike that of the inclusion of Stewart as a wicket-keeper in an AT England XI. Frankly, here I think Richard and Aussie (with all due respect) are dead wrong.

But you dont necessarily have to have a pure batsman at 6, you could always include Wilfred Rhodes in there at 6, or even, and possibly better, Frank Wooley. Both would then give good SLA options with the bowling, open up the inclusion of Laker, and allow for four pace bowlers. Hammond is also a handy inclusion because his good pace bowling was overshadowed by his phenomenal batting. You could then even drop Botham entirely - especially if the ATXI is taken in career terms, not in peak terms.

A following XI thus becomes possible:

1. Hobbs
2. Hutton
3. Hammond
4. Compton
5. Barrington
6. Wooley
7. Knott.
8. Larwood
9. Trueman
10. Snow
11. Laker

 

[Ikki]

Lots of people will agree with you, but I'm afraid I don't. The simple fact is, imho, that Not Outs don't "bloat" averages. As you point out, an average is simply runs divided by dismissals.

You could say that Lara scored more runs per innings than Tendulkar; but by the same token, the stats suggest that Lara was easier to dismiss than Tendulkar. So, in this case at least, the idea of runs per innings doesn't take us very much further.

I think there are only a few cases where not getting dismissed actually aids your team - batting for a draw, etc. Scoring more runs for your team is more important than having your average higher. So if you are easier to dismiss, yet make more runs, I think you are actually helping your team more. Just my opinion.

 

[aussie]

Ah, fair point.

I did say that - but I did qualify it too. Botham was unfortunate in that a good proportion of his tests against the WI coincided with the the foisting of the England captaincy on him at the age of 25. Something he was not up for then, or later. His record against the WI when not captain is quite a bit better - especially with the bat, which seems to be the key issue here.

Bothams batting record against WI when not captain:

Mat  	Inns  	NO  	Runs  	HS  	Ave  	BF  	SR  	100  	50  	0  	4s  	6s  	
11  	22  	1  	550  	81  	26.19  	888  	61.93  	0  	3  	0  	70  	5

Botham's batting record against WI when captain:

Mat  	Inns  	NO  	Runs  	HS  	Ave  	BF  	SR  	100  	50  	0  	4s  	6s
9  	16  	0  	242  	57  	15.12  	494  	48.98  	0  	1  	1  	25  	3

Botham's peak, it is generally accepted, was 1977 - 1984. He played WI once in this time as non captain, in the home series of 84, scored almost 350 runs at an average close to 35, at a SR of 65 with 3 fifties. Enough, I think, to take the view that he could not bat at 6 in AT England XI with a grain of salt.

Well i'd say it rights him off as an option as to bat @ 6. Since hypotetically you are basically saying he is 30-35 average bat @ 6 againts the high class fast bowling attacks he would face againts in hypotetical match-ups vs WI, PAK, SA, AUS. Which for a top 6 batsman for an All-Time XI level isn't good enough.

Plus you can also argue, that even if he wasn't captain for those intial 10 test vs WI, we can't presume he would have done better.Thats tells us something about Sir Ian's temperament. Since even Imran & Kapil as skippers scored hundreds vs WI (but i'm not suggesting Kapil is good enough to bat @ 6 for IND ATXI though).

 

[aussie]

That said, its fair enough to have Botham bat at 7, and Knott at 8, with three other bowlers. I dont know that I agree with it, but I think it a valid point of view - unlike that of the inclusion of Stewart as a wicket-keeper in an AT England XI. Frankly, here I think Richard and Aussie (with all due respect) are dead wrong.

But you dont necessarily have to have a pure batsman at 6, you could always include Wilfred Rhodes in there at 6, or even, and possibly better, Frank Wooley. Both would then give good SLA options with the bowling,

I have considered these options before & well i dont think i would work for for a few reasons.

Firstly Wilfred Rhodes as an "all-rounder" never really existed at test level if you check it out you know, only for Yorkshire. The first part of his test career he was top quality left-arm spinenr for like 10 years. Then he began to open the batting & his bowling became less.

I've read he put down his bowling during this period before the war, so i've never been 100% sure if its a situation where he stopped bowling because ENG did need his bowling or because he wanted to concentrate 100% on his batting because it COULD have affected his game as an opener.

But batting him @ 6, is a bit too high for an ATXI, either 7 or 8 (# 8 preferably).

Wooley from all i've read was a very classy batsman. But like Rhodes he never produced that "all-rounder" performance at test level. Before the First World War his only notable bowling performance was the Oval 1910 & i have a cricket history book which im quoting a key portion:

"Fry driving magnificently, played a brilliant innings of 79 when the ball was turning viciously"

So that tells, he just had perfect conditions (uncovered wickets of the time most likely).

Picking Stewart @ 6 definately holds a more merit than Wooley & Rhodes.

Thats why i'd pick 6 pure batsmen. England ATXI unfortunately can't have the luxury of 5 bowlers. Too much of an issue in trying to balance the team.

open up the inclusion of Laker, and allow for four pace bowlers. Hammond is also a handy inclusion because his good pace bowling was overshadowed by his phenomenal batting. You could then even drop Botham entirely - especially if the ATXI is taken in career terms, not in peak terms.

Generally i would tend to think it would be a players peak. Since few players would have gone an entire career without dropping off to some degree.

For eg with Botham in ENG ATXI, i always imagine that big beared image that i love seeing watching the Botham Ashes DVD.

 

[Pigeon]

Lots of people will agree with you, but I'm afraid I don't. The simple fact is, imho, that Not Outs don't "bloat" averages. As you point out, an average is simply runs divided by dismissals.

You could say that Lara scored more runs per innings than Tendulkar; but by the same token, the stats suggest that Lara was easier to dismiss than Tendulkar. So, in this case at least, the idea of runs per innings doesn't take us very much further.

Tendulkar does not bat lower the order to justify a proporationately large number of not outs either.

 

[Pigeon]

I think there are only a few cases where not getting dismissed actually aids your team - batting for a draw, etc. Scoring more runs for your team is more important than having your average higher. So if you are easier to dismiss, yet make more runs, I think you are actually helping your team more. Just my opinion.

No, I'd prefer a batsman who tends to average 81 per test but gets dismissed less frequently to a batsman who adds 90 per test but also gets out more frequently.

Also what people forget is that Tendulkar came into International cricket extremely early, and did not have a spectacular record for the first 6-7 years of his career, and batted down the order.